Why would anyone go for a podcast rather than a playlist/track?
I also wonder if Spotify somehow adjust the earnings of these creators, as obviously I don't actually listen to their white noise for the whole night.
Taylor Swift's next album will probably be released as a podcast...
This is the biggest mystery to me too. Why not just use a 10-hour-long (or whatever) YouTube clip?
YouTube is also a worse choice if you want offline access, such as on an airplane or when camping
NewPipe (from fdroid repositories) can play audio from YouTube while the screen is off.
This functionality is in no way specific to Brave browser.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/video-backgro...
There are many sleep videos which have a dark screen for this reason, you can add "dark screen" to the search terms and see the choices. Although it's not quite the same as having the screen off, it's close enough in my experience.
Discovering new white noises? Washing machine, hair dryer, forest, see, bar, wind, workplace noises?
For work, I could see that I would like to experiment with different variations of white noise sounds, and see which one helps me the most to concentrate. I'll try out this podcast on Monday.
Those are noise, but not white noise. White noise has all frequencies at equal intensity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_noise
This is like how white light has all frequencies of (visible) light. There are other "colours" of noise too, like pink noise and blue noise, that have different mixes of frequencies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colors_of_noise
My sloppiness came from the fact that, as I have seen, in the YouTube noise video world, 95% of the videos have the "white" label in the title, even if they aren't technically white.
But it turns out that slowing down white noise on Google does change it noticeably. Speeding it up does not.
Someone smarter than me could probably infer some things about how YouTube implements speed shifting from that.
I'm also curious about this. My guess is the monetisation is different and podcasts are way more lucrative. - tracks are paid by plays straight from Spotify but (I think) podcasts instead rely on advertisements.
From the article
> Anchor manages the commercial load and pays Moore $12.25 per thousand listens
which works out to ~$0.012 per listen
And from the top result on Google for "how much does spotify pay per stream"
> $0.0033 to $0.0054. That's how much money Spotify paid artists (through their rights holders) per stream in 2021, according to Insider. That means it would take roughly 250 streams for an artist to earn $1.
Also maybe the advertising value varies considerably with the number of podcast listeners and the specific advertisers partnered with, whereas the track stream amounts are probably pretty static.
"Moore and his white noise team... offer a subscription plan. But most people listen to the free, ad-supported version. Because Moore doesn’t want to interrupt the calming aura of his show, he opts to include only pre-roll ads."
"Reed, who is something of a white noise purist, knows he could make good money with advertisements. But he doesn’t include them because he worries the sound of commerce would disturb his audience’s restful slumber.
'It’s embarrassing to say how much money I would be making,' he said."
I'm not sure but I think tracks have a length limit, and not podcasts. If you want a track that lasts 8 hours as some of these do, then podcasts are the only option.